You sure about that? There are plenty of people writing many bad things about China, they are all in Chinese, go check Wforums or some other Chinese
military discussion forum. 40 million people in Nazi-style? Go on, show me some proof. The Indians killed 400 million people Neo-Con style

1. Well stealth spy tell me the problems of the t-98???
Have you ever throught that the t-98 is not like the arjun that it is a lot better with out any major problems..

2. Why are you commenting on china.. your not chinese never been to china.. dont know the government. How did the chinese eradicate 40+ million of
their own people in Nazi style ???

when was this how come its not in any western books??? how come your the only one that knows about it??

I don't abt this 40 million bit but the T-90 is generally considered to be better than the T-98.. ask kozzy..

Arjun is not so good IMO.. its just a platform for tank buildnig experimentation

And about this dazzler on the T-98..
What laser does it use..What power?
What is the coherence..
How is it used in battle..
I don't thin kyou can just wave it around and hope to blind other tanks esp if the beam is coherent..
And well divergent beams are not lasers..
Why not use a really High powered flashlight and sweep it across ..
IF you trying to achieve blinding of a target then IMO thats much more logical and cost effective..

About the laser on the Type-98, it is recieving this much attention more because it is the first time an "offensive" laser was mounted on a tank.
Not much is known about this, but basically it fries a tanks optics and/or blinds the people targeted by the laser.

Then, about the T-90 being better than the Type-98, nobody knows for sure, I know Kozzy and his rankings are quite good, but then again, Stealth Spy
believes that the Arjun is better than the T-90, and some Americans belive that the M1A2 is better than the Challenger 2. To me, they are all around
the same level, nothing is known for sure, but I belive the T-90 was offered to China and China refused the offer.

The system includes what appears to be a laser warning receiver (LWR - the dome-shaped device on the turret roof behind the commander's position),
that warns the crew that their tank is being illuminated by an enemy range-finding or weapon-guidance laser. The turret of the tank can then be
traversed to face the direction of the enemy threat, and the laser self-defence weapon ('___'W - the box-shaped device on the turret roof behind the
gunner's position), can be employed against the source of the enemy laser.

The procedure of the laser weapon would first use a low-powered beam to locate the optics of the enemy weapon. Once the enemy weapon was located, the
power level of the laser would be immediately and dramatically increased. Such an attack would disable the guidance optics of the enemy weapon and/or
damage the eyesight of the enemy gunner.

The available photos of the Type 98 have also confirmed that the laser weapon can be elevated to a higher angle than the tank's main gun, indicating
that the engagement of attack helicopters is possible. In addition, the laser device could also be used for communications between friend tanks.

the Chinese system apparently uses a high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner.

huh??

The procedure of the laser weapon would first use a low-powered beam to locate the optics of the enemy weapon

How does it do that??

.

Once the enemy weapon was located, the power level of the laser would be immediately and dramatically increased. Such an attack would disable
the guidance optics of the enemy weapon and/or damage the eyesight of the enemy gunner.

wow

I'd like to see a demo!1
Not taht I don't believe it( sounds plausible)
but it sure is very hi-fi!! ( not hi -fidelity!!

Perhaps the most interesting characteristic of the Type 98 is the addition of what appears to be a previously unknown active self-defense
system. Unlike contemporary Russian active tank self-defense systems like Drozd, Drozd-2, and Arena, which launch projectiles to disable or
"shoot-down" incoming anti-tank missiles and projectiles, the Chinese system apparently uses a high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy
weapon's optics and gunner. The system includes what appears to be a laser warning receiver (LWR - the dome-shaped device on the turret roof behind
the commander's position), that warns the crew that their tank is being illuminated by an enemy range-finding or weapon-guidance laser. The turret of
the tank can then be traversed to face the direction of the enemy threat, and the laser self-defense weapon ('___'W - the box-shaped device on the
turret roof behind the gunner's position), can be employed against the source of the enemy laser.

While the engagement procedure of the Type 98's self-defense laser is unknown, published reports concerning similar weapons describe a procedure
where the laser weapon would first use a low-powered beam to locate the optics of the enemy weapon. Once the enemy weapon was located, the power level
of the laser would be immediately and dramatically increased. Such an attack would disable the guidance optics of the enemy weapon and/or damage the
eyesight of the enemy gunner.

The turret-mounted system carried by the Type 98 is very similar to a tripod-mounted laser weapon that was seen for the first time at an arms
exhibition in Manila in 1995. Identified at the exhibition as the "Laser Interference Device," it matched the description of a known Chinese laser
weapon called the ZM-87. According to its promotional information, one of the ZM-87's major uses is to "injure or dizzy targeted individuals." The
ZM-87 can reportedly injure the human eye at 2-3 kms, this rising to over 5 kms using a 7-power magnification device. Additionally, short-term
"flaring blind-ness" can be inflicted on the human eye at up to 10 kms. The ZM-87 and the laser weapon carried by the Type 98 should not be confused
with electro-optical "dazzlers" like those turret-mounted de-vices used by the Iraqis during Operation Desert Storm. Those Iraqi devices (some of
which are believed to have been supplied by the Chinese), are designed to confuse the tracking systems of Western/NATO anti-tank guided missiles
(ATGMs), without directly attacking the controlling optics or the eyesight of the weapon's gunner. The available photos of the Type 96 have also
confirmed that the laser weapon can be elevated to a higher angle than the tank's main gun, indicating that the engagement of attack helicopters is
possible.

The Type-98 MBTs are fitted with a JD-3 integrated laser rangefinder/warning/self-defense device – also called a "dazzler" – which uses a
high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner.

At least one source indicated to the magazine Russia has supplied some of the technology for the Chinese project in exchange for foreign currency
to fund its own tank programs.

Russia, meanwhile, is upgrading its MBT to the T-95 version, which is so secret public photos have yet to be released, according to an analysis by the
American Foreign Policy Center.

AFPC said China is believed to be the first country to use such active laser defense devices on its tanks.

When America invested billions in the development of the Abrams battle tank, the Russians started to look for a more economical way of killing it
without bothering to build an opposition tank of their own. To this end, they duplicated the American armor and tested different methods of
penetrating it with lightweight economical weapons. Long before America invaded Russian ally Iraq in 2003, they had already found the answer.

Before America crossed the border from Kuwait into Iraq, Russia discreetly supplied the Republican Guard with more than 1,000 "Kornet"
anti-tank missiles. Each of these and its launcher can easily be handled by a team of three men, and be fired from a simple hole in the desert. Kornet
is a laser-guided Mach 3 nightmare with a double warhead guaranteed to finish off at Abrams from 5,000 yards away. In other words, completely out of
sight of the American tank crew until missile impact. These missiles have already accounted for more than 60 Abrams tanks in Iraq, and will
unquestionably account for a lot more in the future.

I've seen that T-72-T-98 pic soo many places before..
wonder what the real purpose is of showing em' together..
Is it really to show the similarities or is it something else?
Anyone translate the chinese text?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I've seen that T-72-T-98 pic soo many places before..
wonder what the real purpose is of showing em' together..
Is it really to show the similarities or is it something else?
Anyone translate the chinese text?

It's because China uses alot of T-72's so a comparison is normal to show you the difference between the latest tanks and the main one in China's
arsenal.

The Type-98 MBTs are fitted with a JD-3 integrated laser rangefinder/warning/self-defense device – also called a "dazzler" – which uses a
high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner.

At least one source indicated to the magazine Russia has supplied some of the technology for the Chinese project in exchange for foreign currency
to fund its own tank programs.

Russia, meanwhile, is upgrading its MBT to the T-95 version, which is so secret public photos have yet to be released, according to an analysis by the
American Foreign Policy Center.

AFPC said China is believed to be the first country to use such active laser defense devices on its tanks.

The Russian help was obviously there, but not with the laser. I bet Arjun also had some Russian help

The Type-98 chassis is totally different from the T-72 chassis. Funny that people are pasting that to show that its different while you post it to say
that they are the same. I'm not even going to point out the differences for you.

And yes, Arjun also looks like the Leopard 2, while the Type-98 looks nothing like the T-72. If the Type-98 uses the chassis of the T-72 then the
Arjun is a direct copy of the Leopard 2.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.